Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No DefinitionsDefinition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

What do the CERN experiments tell us about global warming?

What the science says...

Even the CERN scientist who ran the experiment admits that it "says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate."

Climate Myth...

CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming

"The new [CERN] findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth...CERN, and the Danes, have in all likelihood found the path to the Holy Grail of climate science" [Lawrence Solomon]

"At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step"

At CERN, Europe's high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, scientists created an experiment to test how clouds are formed. The experiment ties in with a climate "skeptic" hypothesis that cosmic rays (charged particles from space) are causing global warming. As the hypothesis goes:

Many climate "skeptic" bloggers and commenters have claimed that the CERN experiment has proven that cosmic rays are causing global warming, and that the experiment is "the final nail in the man-made global warming coffin" (i.e. here and here and here and here).

In reality, the CERN experiment only tests the bolded step in this list of requirements for cosmic rays to be causing global warming:

Solar magnetic field must be getting stronger

The number of cosmic rays reaching Earth must be dropping

Cosmic rays must successfully seed clouds, which requires:

Cosmic rays must trigger aerosol (liquid droplet) formation

These newly-formed aerosols must grow sufficiently through condensation to form cloud-condensation nuclei (CCN)

The CCN must lead to increased cloud formation

Cloud cover on Earth must be declining

In short, the CERN experiment only tested one-third of one out of four requirements to blame global warming on cosmic rays. Additionally scientists have measured solar activity and the number of cosmic rays reaching Earth, and neither meets the first two requirements listed above. Both solar magentic field strength and the number of cosmic rays reaching Earth have been flat over the past 50+ years (Figure 1).

As Dr. Kirby said in the quote above, it is an important first step, just like buying eggs is an important first step in baking a soufflé. But just having some eggs doesn't mean I can bake a successful soufflé. There are a whole lot of other requirements necessary for me to bake a soufflé, and believe me, I don't meet them!

Comments

Try as hard as I might, I cannot see why proving that climate change is human in origin should have any bearing on the need to take action. We know that atmospheric CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas and we know how to reduce the amount of it we humans release into the atmosphere. So let's just get on with reducing it.

Every time we argue about whether the change in the climate that we are experiencing is human in origin or not gives the politicians, who have an urgent need to protect their job in elections that come by every four or five years, an excuse to procrastinate. And heaven knows they have been excellent procrastinators when one looks at what has actually been achieved since Kyoto. It sickens me to think that Monckton and his ilk are winning hands down as things are. Though I doubt they will enjoy the prize they earn.

I have given the example elsewhere on this site that you would not refuse to change direction or speed because the iceberg dead ahead is not human in origin.

Response: [muoncounter] You're wildly off-topic for this thread (which should have links to all of the existing it's not cosmic rays threads).

I was looking for this argument on the "Climate myths sorted by taxonomy" page, but I could not find it. Is there a reason it isn't on that page, and if not, would someone who can consider adding it there? I imagine it should be added under "It's cosmic rays".

It is sadly amazing how such things take a life of their own. However the letter did send me looking for what the experment was doing. As is often the case, some folk put words into scientists' mouths without first asking them.

I commend you for your strictness in interpreting the results of the Cloud Experiment. As you quite rightly say, the lead author (Jasper Kirby) has been very cautious in his claims, limiting himself to the results of the CERN experiments. You can see this very clearly in the recent paper that reports the experimental results.

In his lecture available via Youtube, Dr Kirby was careful to warn his audience concerning the uncertainties in the putative mechanism relating GCR to climate via cloud formation. There is a big ? mark in the graphic and he points it out to the audience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63AbaX1dE7I

In an earlier paper Dr Kirby was likewise cautious about what was expected from the Cloud Experiment, together with the uncertainties in relation to climate.

He stated,

"Although recent observations support the presence of ioninducednucleation of new aerosols in the atmosphere, the possible contribution of such new particles to changes in the number of cloud condensation nuclei remains an open question." Page 32.